https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by LuluCheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c8da04c412ed4f54596f10434aa46592d000fbf
commit r15-8962-g7c8da04c412ed4f54596f10434aa46592d000fbf
Author: Lulu Cheng
Date: Sat Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119493
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60896
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60896&action=edit
patch which is NOT tested but seems to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92474
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||tail-call
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.5
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119493
Bug ID: 119493
Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] missing tail call to self
with struct in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107048
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115979
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||119492
--- Comment #28 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119222
--- Comment #17 from Gwen Fu ---
Created attachment 60895
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60895&action=edit
Other cases of this conversion, including assignment and some other use cases
Initialization and assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119492
Bug ID: 119492
Summary: missing tail call due to address of the argument taken
but NOT escaping
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: FIXME,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #27 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #24)
> MpUnknownEnumFallback also fails still because we didn't optimize away this:
> ```
>[count: 0]:
> :
> goto ; [100.00%]
>
> ...
>
>[count: 0]:
> :
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This fixes it but I am not sure about adding another cleanup eh pass:
diff --git a/gcc/passes.def b/gcc/passes.def
index 9fd85a35a63..d9fff4cf833 100644
--- a/gcc/passes.def
+++ b/gcc/passes.def
@@ -368,6 +3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491
Bug ID: 119491
Summary: missed tail call due to exceptions which is empty
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, tail-call
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
--- Comment #11 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Okay it's not aliases just all the decls of the scope.
I think it would benefit from two lists, one list of marked decls, and another
of yet to mark decls. So that the already marked bindings don't n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80681
Gwen Fu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gwen3293940943 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
--- Comment #10 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I misidentified the hot loop, it's actually this one in store_bindings:
for (t = names; t; t = TREE_CHAIN (t))
{
if (TREE_CODE (t) == TREE_LIST)
id = TREE_PURPOSE (t);
else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90179
Gwen Fu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gwen3293940943 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119477
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Especially since mem* and str* builtins can expand to using the vector
registers. And even stuff like:
int a[1024] = {};
will expand into a memset which expands to using the vector registers. This is
true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119477
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
For filing bugs, we need reduced testcases. Please try extract one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119477
--- Comment #3 from 孙东亚 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Do you have a testcase?
Small test cases are not accurate enough, so we use the int case of spec2006 as
the test case: https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/CINT2006/. The compila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118541
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
I submitted V4 of the patch on March 26th:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/679428.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111263
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner ---
I just submitted a new patch for PR 118541, which I believe should also fix
111263:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/679428.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119489
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Fixed the dump issue. Not sure what to do about the volatile C++26 complaint.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119489
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abd8e46e72c81837d61bc94bd5dfee6b9ef4cde1
commit r15-8960-gabd8e46e72c81837d61bc94bd5dfee6b9ef4cde1
Author: Sam James
Date: Thu Mar 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #12)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> > > Did this ever happen ?
> > >
> > > Similar test case gcc/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119490
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
|a/show_bug.cgi?id=10146
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119490
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |c++
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119490
Bug ID: 119490
Summary: g++.dg/template/explicit-args6.C fails test for
warnings once with directive fix
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119489
Bug ID: 119489
Summary: g++.dg/strub-internal-pr112938.C test fails
scan-tree-dump-times once fixed to actually run
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98743
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ecdefb5ee9215153d9c74b0528ac88b9e05e7af
commit r15-8958-g1ecdefb5ee9215153d9c74b0528ac88b9e05e7af
Author: Sam James
Date: Thu Mar 27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105820
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ecdefb5ee9215153d9c74b0528ac88b9e05e7af
commit r15-8958-g1ecdefb5ee9215153d9c74b0528ac88b9e05e7af
Author: Sam James
Date: Thu Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93437
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06b7549a762e6ed08ae919e7b9befa2ee7fb9b4b
commit r15-8955-g06b7549a762e6ed08ae919e7b9befa2ee7fb9b4b
Author: Sam James
Date: Thu Oct 31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119484
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60894
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60894&action=edit
This is the reduced testcase from PR 119376
This is the represenative of the reduced testcase from PR 119376.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
--- Comment #9 from Alejandro Colomar ---
BTW, maybe the example I presented wasn't explicit enough about the dangers of
this. Here's an example of a program which results in a bug, with no
diagnostics.
alx@devuan:~/tmp$ cat ml.c | grep -Tn ^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9040a0dfc3931bbce8523de678e70238c9e37501
commit r15-8950-g9040a0dfc3931bbce8523de678e70238c9e37501
Author: Sam James
Date: Tue Oct 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37143
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:45a8206b1ece6bfd0c9ac4dfe6a46617ce5d0724
commit r15-8951-g45a8206b1ece6bfd0c9ac4dfe6a46617ce5d0724
Author: Sam James
Date: Tue Oct 29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
--- Comment #8 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #6)
> > But maybe I should say (part of) this extension is quite dangerous,
> > regardless of it violating the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98265
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dcbc80af6fc3fb5c2b23a1773682ec8f91b4eeaf
commit r15-8952-gdcbc80af6fc3fb5c2b23a1773682ec8f91b4eeaf
Author: Sam James
Date: Fri Nov 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112938
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Sam James :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6b21f7969241cff217821239b968c760ab8e38fc
commit r15-8949-g6b21f7969241cff217821239b968c760ab8e38fc
Author: Sam James
Date: Tue Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119488
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
```
/home/sam/git/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/25_algorithms/stable_sort/constexpr.cc:21:
error: non-constant condition for static assertion
In file included from
/tmp/bisect-gcc-bld/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119486
Bug ID: 119486
Summary: CTAD for std::pair from function lvalue results in
hard error since C++20
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: reje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119488
Bug ID: 119488
Summary: 25_algorithms/stable_sort/constexpr.cc test fails
(error: non-constant condition for static assertion)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119487
Bug ID: 119487
Summary: Marking inline variable as 'noinit' causes assembly
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118518
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
|a/show_bug.cgi?id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #23)
> There is some one more non-escape failure with the protobuf sources. I am
> trying to reduce it right now.
>
> The IR looks like:
> ```
> google::protobuf:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119485
Bug ID: 119485
Summary: OpenACC offloading compilation failure/ICE for C++
templated library functions
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119484
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119484
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Again -fno-ipa-vrp works around this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119484
Bug ID: 119484
Summary: [14/15 Regression] v2: tail call vs IPA-VRP return
value range with constant value
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
MpUnknownEnumFallback also fails still because we didn't optimize away this:
```
[count: 0]:
:
goto ; [100.00%]
...
[count: 0]:
:
[count: 0]:
:
resx 1
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I noticed this while looking into the tail call failures of 119376 but it
was for a tail call to mempcpy like thing which is a different issue all
together and that might be filed seperately already too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119227
--- Comment #14 from James K. Lowden ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #13)
> (In reply to James K. Lowden from comment #12)
> > The inability to create a PDF from groff suggests an old version is
> > installed. The PDF driver was int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #6)
> But maybe I should say (part of) this extension is quite dangerous,
> regardless of it violating the standard.
So don't use the option to enable the exten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
--- Comment #6 from Alejandro Colomar ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> What's the point in saying that extensions violate a standard, since they
> are designed for this?
There are extensions that define something not defined by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119483
Bug ID: 119483
Summary: musttail vs noreturn discovery
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: tail-call
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #12 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> > Did this ever happen ?
> >
> > Similar test case gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx10_1-26.c
> > still seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95139
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118991
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118796
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b70bd691cfd77b4d7a453031599bb6f1d48aedf1
commit r15-8945-gb70bd691cfd77b4d7a453031599bb6f1d48aedf1
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95139
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118796
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|anlauf at gmx dot de |
Assignee|u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 60893
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60893&action=edit
Patch which needs testcases but seems to work (and needs to full tested)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119479
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization, ssemmx |
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Any mis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note most (if not all) of the escape issues are due to the spill hack that has
already been removed in upstream protobuf.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119482
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Component|tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #34 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #33)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #31)
> This does not help us much though, unfortunately, since that support appears
> rudimentary and, importantly, won
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119480
--- Comment #4 from Mark Bourgeault ---
Yes, it fails on 14.1. I was too quick to conclude it was fixed on 14.*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119482
Bug ID: 119482
Summary: slow compilation on
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #33 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #31)
Ever since I came across a couple of instances suggesting some (very limited)
support for blocks in Apple gcc-4.2. So you are right.
This does not help us much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119478
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119480
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is some one more non-escape failure with the protobuf sources. I am
trying to reduce it right now.
The IR looks like:
```
google::protobuf::internal::TcParser::Error.constprop.isra (msg_55(D), _22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/m3bpr5k4d4@google.com/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Colomar ---
alx@devuan:~/tmp$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -fplan9-extensions -Wpedantic cast.c
alx@devuan:~/tmp$
-Wpedantic still doesn't say anything. It should. And this should even go
into -Wextra or -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119481
Bug ID: 119481
Summary: -fplan9-extensions violates the C standard (6.3.3.3p7)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Mark_B53 at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119480
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>// 14.* pass pass pass
No this is incorrect. 14.1.0 fails at -O2, 14.2.0 passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118796
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119242
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e897d7e954439c4f0aea1ffa0c18bbea27e3373
commit r15-8936-g5e897d7e954439c4f0aea1ffa0c18bbea27e3373
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119480
--- Comment #1 from Mark Bourgeault ---
https://www.godbolt.org/z/T5qE5M87T shows the issue on Compiler Explorer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119480
Bug ID: 119480
Summary: Wrong code generated in simple program that uses
LLVM::map_to_vector
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119479
--- Comment #1 from Jon Daniel ---
*** Bug 115362 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119479
Bug ID: 119479
Summary: wrong sign caused by substraction operand swap of two
dot product operands
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119291
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems reg_used_between_p is already called in various spots in combine.cc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115362
Jon Daniel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119478
Bug ID: 119478
Summary: structure constructor is using the wrong stride
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116163
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119401
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
We crash in convert_nontype_argument on
gcc_assert (same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p
(type, TREE_TYPE (expr)));
because type=struct ._anon_3 and TREE_TYPE (expr)=const struct ._ano
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119476
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119474
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Stubbs ---
In the -O1 case, the problem seems to be that the "ivopts" pass has identified
an item-in-an-array-in-a-struct as the IV, and that struct is in a different
address space:
Type: REFERENCE ADDRESS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119471
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119291
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, the buggy try_combine is the second case of 22 -> 25 combination.
Trying 22 -> 25:
22: r104:SI=0
25: {flags:CCZ=cmp(-r104:SI,0);r116:SI=-r104:SI;}
REG_DEAD r104:SI
Failed to match this instr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119477
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
